Abortion is Wrong?

[Cradled Squads]

But they aren't if you left sperm in a jar that could provide them all the nutrients and air needed to create life it wouldn't ever turn into a baby without the introduction of a ova. And vice-versa, but put a zygote in that same jar and you would eventually have a baby in that jar.
This is the difference. This is why a zygote is indeed human life, whereas sperm is not, nor ova

I can absolutely guaranty that if you stick a zygote in a sealed jar, you will not eventually have a baby in that jar.. I seriously think whoever taught you about human reproduction did a piss-fucking-poor job of it...

It must be in the uterus.

WELL GOLLY.

It's almost as if THE UTERUS is required in order for the zygote to develop. It's almost as if a zygote, LEFT TO ITSELF, won't become jack shit.

HMMM.

I guarantee that's the point they DIDN'T want anyone to pick up on...and they're gonna be stepping all over themselves to dig outta that hole. Acutally, it's not the uterus...it's the umbilical cord and the amnionic fluid that are key. Other, carefully designed containers would/have work(ed) and this has been scientifically proven.

[Cradled Squads]

It's not a baby, It's a fetus. A fetus is part of a womans body, they should get to do what they want with it.

A parasite is not considered a part of your body, similarly a foetus which has unique human DNA is not a part of it's host body merely borrowing nutrients and air from it.

Granted, that you can kill a parasite living in your body, but the point remains that a parasite is not your body. I would argue that despite acting as a parasite, this separate human life should not be legal to kill.
However were there an ability to terminate the pregnancy without ending this individual human life, I would not argue against such a procedure, and would actually like to see it legal, though I would still prefer it not used

^

It is medically and scientifically false to claim that a fetus is a part of the mother's body.

her biological system. I'd call that a part of her body.

Los Angeles -- Researchers may have solved the enduring mystery of how a fetus is able to evade its mother’s immune system for the nine months of pregnancy -- a discovery that could lead to new drugs to prevent transplant rejection, to help women who have difficulty conceiving, and even to induce abortions safely.

Normally, the human immune system reacts against any foreign tissue in the body and tries to destroy it. And because half of an infant’s genes come from the father, “we are transplants for the nine months of our lives before we ever come out into the world,” said Dr. Andrew L. Mellor, who led the research. “Our discovery addresses the paradox of how mammals, including human beings, survive in the potentially hostile environment of the womb.”

Scientists have long believed that the developing fetus avoids destruction because the mother has a protective mechanism that somehow creates a “privileged” site -- the womb -- where rejection doesn’t occur.

The research indicates the fetus creates a privileged site by mounting a guerrilla operation against the mom’s immune cells by secreting an enzyme that blocks a key component of the immune response.

Inadequate production by the fetal cells of the enzyme, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, known as IDO, may play a key role in spontaneous miscarriages, according to research that the Medical College of Georgia team reports today in the journal Science.

If that can be demonstrated, Mellor said, it may well be possible to develop drugs that mimic the action of IDO or stimulate increased production of the enzyme.

Alternatively, it might be possible to administer IDO inhibitors to provoke a miscarriage when an abortion is desired.

Interfering with tryptophan metabolism to protect a transplant may be more difficult because the amino acid is required throughout the body. But when researchers learn how the lack of tryptophan results in tolerance, they will almost certainly identify a biological pathway that can be attacked at other points.

“That’s probably where the real opportunity would exist for clinical application,” said Dr. Robertson Parkman of the University of Southern California.

The task now, Parkman said, is to completely understand the biological pathway in the hope of finding places to interfere with it to protect transplanted organs.

Hmm. Looks like you're what we call "incredibly wrong."

Look at it this way, I've had kids. If it's in my body and drawing substance from it, it's part of me. What you're over-looking is that while half the DNA is their father's, the other half is MINE. Leave the scientists out of it and ask the ER doctors instead.

I'd bet you get a different answer. Most of what you get from scientists publishing papers is theory.

[Arkinesia]

It's not a baby, It's a fetus. A fetus is part of a womans body, they should get to do what they want with it.

A parasite is not considered a part of your body, similarly a foetus which has unique human DNA is not a part of it's host body merely borrowing nutrients and air from it.

Granted, that you can kill a parasite living in your body, but the point remains that a parasite is not your body. I would argue that despite acting as a parasite, this separate human life should not be legal to kill.
However were there an ability to terminate the pregnancy without ending this individual human life, I would not argue against such a procedure, and would actually like to see it legal, though I would still prefer it not used

^

It is medically and scientifically false to claim that a fetus is a part of the mother's body.

her biological system. I'd call that a part of her body.

Los Angeles -- Researchers may have solved the enduring mystery of how a fetus is able to evade its mother’s immune system for the nine months of pregnancy -- a discovery that could lead to new drugs to prevent transplant rejection, to help women who have difficulty conceiving, and even to induce abortions safely.

Normally, the human immune system reacts against any foreign tissue in the body and tries to destroy it. And because half of an infant’s genes come from the father, “we are transplants for the nine months of our lives before we ever come out into the world,” said Dr. Andrew L. Mellor, who led the research. “Our discovery addresses the paradox of how mammals, including human beings, survive in the potentially hostile environment of the womb.”

Scientists have long believed that the developing fetus avoids destruction because the mother has a protective mechanism that somehow creates a “privileged” site -- the womb -- where rejection doesn’t occur.

The research indicates the fetus creates a privileged site by mounting a guerrilla operation against the mom’s immune cells by secreting an enzyme that blocks a key component of the immune response.

Inadequate production by the fetal cells of the enzyme, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, known as IDO, may play a key role in spontaneous miscarriages, according to research that the Medical College of Georgia team reports today in the journal Science.

If that can be demonstrated, Mellor said, it may well be possible to develop drugs that mimic the action of IDO or stimulate increased production of the enzyme.

Alternatively, it might be possible to administer IDO inhibitors to provoke a miscarriage when an abortion is desired.

Interfering with tryptophan metabolism to protect a transplant may be more difficult because the amino acid is required throughout the body. But when researchers learn how the lack of tryptophan results in tolerance, they will almost certainly identify a biological pathway that can be attacked at other points.

“That’s probably where the real opportunity would exist for clinical application,” said Dr. Robertson Parkman of the University of Southern California.

The task now, Parkman said, is to completely understand the biological pathway in the hope of finding places to interfere with it to protect transplanted organs.

Hmm. Looks like you're what we call "incredibly wrong."

Look at it this way, I've had kids. If it's in my body and drawing substance from it, it's part of me. What you're over-looking is that while half the DNA is their father's, the other half is MINE. Leave the scientists out of it and ask the ER doctors instead.

I'd bet you get a different answer. Most of what you get from scientists publishing papers is theory.

1. The title thing makes it difficult to quote your posts.
2. Oh, so creationism must be right, then? Because it involves merely field observations and no theory whatsoever?

[Cradled Squads]

Look at it this way, I've had kids. If it's in my body and drawing substance from it, it's part of me. What you're over-looking is that while half the DNA is their father's, the other half is MINE. Leave the scientists out of it and ask the ER doctors instead.

I'd bet you get a different answer. Most of what you get from scientists publishing papers is theory.

1. The title thing makes it difficult to quote your posts.
2. Oh, so creationism must be right, then? Because it involves merely field observations and no theory whatsoever?[/quote]

Change directions. Theories, by definition are unproven. And an emergency room is hardly 'mere observation'. I'm not even talking abortion, now...I'm talking car wrecks or whatever, that's resulted in the injury or other trauma to a pregnant woman, the unborn fetus or both. In other words, I'm referring to real life situtations instead of the makebelieve crap someone without a REAL job comes up with to pass the time and create busywork for his or her under used brain.

[Arkinesia]

Look at it this way, I've had kids. If it's in my body and drawing substance from it, it's part of me. What you're over-looking is that while half the DNA is their father's, the other half is MINE. Leave the scientists out of it and ask the ER doctors instead.

I'd bet you get a different answer. Most of what you get from scientists publishing papers is theory.

1. The title thing makes it difficult to quote your posts.
2. Oh, so creationism must be right, then? Because it involves merely field observations and no theory whatsoever?

Change directions. Theories, by definition are unproven. And an emergency room is hardly 'mere observation'. I'm not even talking abortion, now...I'm talking car wrecks or whatever, that's resulted in the injury or other trauma to a pregnant woman, the unborn fetus or both. In other words, I'm referring to real life situtations instead of the makebelieve crap someone without a REAL job comes up with to pass the time and create busywork for his or her under used brain.[/quote]
It doesn't mean that a fetus is a part of a woman's body.

Observations are no replacement for facts.

[Cradled Squads]

Creationalist, anyway? I'm not an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew so you need to back the fuck up. YOU don't know me or what I believe so stop trying to guess...it just makes you appear a bigger idiot than anyone should really reveal themselves to be in public.

[Cradled Squads]

Look at it this way, I've had kids. If it's in my body and drawing substance from it, it's part of me. What you're over-looking is that while half the DNA is their father's, the other half is MINE. Leave the scientists out of it and ask the ER doctors instead.

I'd bet you get a different answer. Most of what you get from scientists publishing papers is theory.

1. The title thing makes it difficult to quote your posts.
2. Oh, so creationism must be right, then? Because it involves merely field observations and no theory whatsoever?

Change directions. Theories, by definition are unproven. And an emergency room is hardly 'mere observation'. I'm not even talking abortion, now...I'm talking car wrecks or whatever, that's resulted in the injury or other trauma to a pregnant woman, the unborn fetus or both. In other words, I'm referring to real life situtations instead of the makebelieve crap someone without a REAL job comes up with to pass the time and create busywork for his or her under used brain.

It doesn't mean that a fetus is a part of a woman's body.

Observations are no replacement for facts.[/quote]Caused the death of a fetus, there's enough 'data' to make the case they're part of the same system for that period of time. If damage or trauma to the fetus caused the death or damage or trauma to the female carrier, the same is true. WITHOUT there being a direct phyical link, neither would be a concern.

Did you know that it's possible for a woman to bleed to death from the early severance of the umbilical cord, under some situtations? The same cord that your theories claim has no real impact on her since the fetus isn't really a 'part' of her?

You've got to be a man, no female would be this stupid.

[Darkarbia]

Creationalist, anyway? I'm not an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew so you need to back the fuck up. YOU don't know me or what I believe so stop trying to guess...it just makes you appear a bigger idiot than anyone should really reveal themselves to be in public.

Learn 2 post. Also, he did not say you are a creationalist, he merely added on the things you said, leading to the conclusion you talked bollocks.

[Cradled Squads]

Creationalist, anyway? I'm not an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew so you need to back the fuck up. YOU don't know me or what I believe so stop trying to guess...it just makes you appear a bigger idiot than anyone should really reveal themselves to be in public.

Learn 2 post. Also, he did not say you are a creationalist, he merely added on the things you said, leading to the conclusion you talked bollocks.

2. Oh, so creationism must be right, then? Because it involves merely field observations and no theory whatsoever?

They also tend to be rather stupid and fanatics. At least the ones I've met were, anyway. Those people don't care about facts...and that's the point I'm making...theories aren't facts. That's why they're called 'theories'. Unsupported theories aren't something I pay any attention to since there's a really HIGH probability the scientist spouting it is still trying to get funding to look into it...and has no real, provable data. You can't build a usable argument on a theory, since there's no hard science behind it yet.

Apparently, no one has ever explained that to this person.

[Cradled Squads]

Statistics from the average Trauma Center or major Emergency Room would be better sources than his theories. At least they've got hard data, the trauma teams are experts and unlike our dude with the unproven theories, they KNOW what they're doing. Take abortion out of the picture and look at various injuries to pregnant woman that come through ER doors, look at the interactions, medically speaking, between woman and fetus and what has to be done to one to stablize the other.

If medical action has to be taken on ONE of them, to stablize the other individual...and it frequently does, that's more than observation, that's hard science proving that they are indeed part of a single system for a few months.

[Dempublicents1]

I'm not sure what the ongoing conversation has to do with the thread topic, but it is making me laugh.

[Cradled Squads]

I'm not sure what the ongoing conversation has to do with the thread topic, but it is making me laugh.

that had no substainsive use or proof and made no sense at all. So I decided to bludgeon him with it.

[Central Slavia]

That some people do act stupidly is as well? But, drug addicts also are prepared to do anything for their dose - should we provide them as well?

I love how women who have consensual sex (as if they had the right or something!) are now compared to "drug addicts." Yes, we're addicted to having sharp objects shoved up our cooters, or having to take pills that cause us to cramp and bleed for a week straight, or (best of all!) having a vacuum stuffed up into places that should only ever be treated nicely.

And now you miss the point, which is that the fact that someone is determined to do something so much that if he does not get other way he will act in a dangerous way to himself does not imply we should provide it to him.

Lastly there might be circumstances where such extreme action might be warranted.
As i said i am not entirely against abortion , just wanton one.

As you've shown, you're not entirely against abortion, you just think you should be the one who decides which abortions are "justified" and which are "wanton."

You're so arrogant that you'll label me 'stupid' without knowing for one instant what my situation was. Tell me, was I raped? Was my life in danger from my pregnancy? Did the doctor inform me that carrying to term would cripple me, or render me infertile for the rest of my life? Was I trying to escape an abusive boyfriend? Was I addicted to drugs and didn't want to give birth to a baby with serious defects or drug addiction? Do I have a genetic disease that I desperately don't want to pass on?

You're ready to label my choice as "wanton," so go ahead and tell me all about my situation. Prove that you know what you're talking about.

Or, you know, just apologize for your petty insults and inappropriate comments. The way a grown-up would do.

There are two strands. Firstly i did not say or imply that your abortion was wanton. If you inferred that i actually apologise.
But secondly , if it was not, since i have several times expressed that i am not against abortions for objective reasons (even back there arguing with muravyets and URS) bringing up a case where it was is not a counterargument, because under the system i have said you would have gotten one.

I am starting to get an idea - to get an abortion the woman should appear before a commision that would medically and socio-economically assess her and the enviroment . If they agree she will get the abortion ,and for free.

I'd rather shove broken glass up my vagina then stand in front of a commission of people like you just so that I can hear all about how my choices are too 'wanton' or 'stupid' and therefore I'm going to be denied a safe abortion and will have to resort to shoving broken glass up my vagina.

Then, do so. It is the same with state medicine - you are free not to go to emergency and stitch that gaping slice on your arm yourself, and it makes sense if the injury would prove you of a crime, but generally it is not the best choice.
If you would really rather do what you say instead of appearing in front of such commission , then you are just stubborn.

[Dempublicents1]

I'm not sure what the ongoing conversation has to do with the thread topic, but it is making me laugh.

that had no substainsive use or proof and made no sense at all. So I decided to bludgeon him with it.

You're absolutely right. Having something attached to you that affects your health automatically makes it a part of your body, even if said object functions as a separate (albeit parasitic) organism and has to trick your immune system into letting it stay there. It's a semantic argument with no actual bearing on the debate at hand, of course, so why not go with it?

[Dempublicents1]

Then, do so. It is the same with state medicine - you are free not to go to emergency and stitch that gaping slice on your arm yourself, and it makes sense if the injury would prove you of a crime, but generally it is not the best choice.
If you would really rather do what you say instead of appearing in front of such commission , then you are just stubborn.

Poor, silly, stubborn Bottle. How could she wish to be treated as an actual adult human being instead of a creature who needs a panel to tell her how to live her life? That's just stubborn!

[Central Slavia]

1) No but the fact that you want to eat is not sufficient proof that you need food. The body functioning and the examples of starvation are proof of that. I have never heard of someone die from lack of fuck,

Bullshit, and ignoring the points that have already been made (and not just by me) in order to post said bullshit.

2) Yes indeed , and it will follow with the toothbrush on a string act ...

Thank you for acknowledging the childishness of your performance here.

3) He has just stated an rather irrelevant fact, not explained. you have low standards for proof when it concerns something you agree with

And now you don't even know who you're talking about or what they were saying. I think I'm ready to forget you exist now.

1) Prove to me that people need fucking to survive.
3) I know who - the guy who just mentioned that greater good idea was behind the worst atrocities in history (meaning hitler) to who i responded that it is responsible for a load of utterly good ones as well - without, neither me or you would likely know how to read eg.)

[Vayenne]

In my opinion (yet to remember, I am an Atheist, therefore I may not discuss the issue of destroying a human soul through abortion), abortion is not unethical I any way, as the foetus, before getting to the 6th month of pregnancy, is merely a tumorous part of a woman's body that may be decided to be removed - or not.

Talking about Foetus Rights is like talking about the rights of Bacteria, as this is what a foetus actually is: a swarm of cells that happen to be inside the same cover.

Though that, I really have a hard time imagining in what situations would be abortion good except for the foetus-inducing-health-problems one. Seriously now, as legal as abortion can be, a condom or a pill at the right time would save you of a lot of unwanted situations.

But simply put, the Poll is kind of conclusive.

[Cradled Squads]

That some people do act stupidly is as well? But, drug addicts also are prepared to do anything for their dose - should we provide them as well?

I love how women who have consensual sex (as if they had the right or something!) are now compared to "drug addicts." Yes, we're addicted to having sharp objects shoved up our cooters, or having to take pills that cause us to cramp and bleed for a week straight, or (best of all!) having a vacuum stuffed up into places that should only ever be treated nicely.

And now you miss the point, which is that the fact that someone is determined to do something so much that if he does not get other way he will act in a dangerous way to himself does not imply we should provide it to him.

Lastly there might be circumstances where such extreme action might be warranted.
As i said i am not entirely against abortion , just wanton one.

As you've shown, you're not entirely against abortion, you just think you should be the one who decides which abortions are "justified" and which are "wanton."

You're so arrogant that you'll label me 'stupid' without knowing for one instant what my situation was. Tell me, was I raped? Was my life in danger from my pregnancy? Did the doctor inform me that carrying to term would cripple me, or render me infertile for the rest of my life? Was I trying to escape an abusive boyfriend? Was I addicted to drugs and didn't want to give birth to a baby with serious defects or drug addiction? Do I have a genetic disease that I desperately don't want to pass on?

You're ready to label my choice as "wanton," so go ahead and tell me all about my situation. Prove that you know what you're talking about.

Or, you know, just apologize for your petty insults and inappropriate comments. The way a grown-up would do.
[/quote]
There are two strands. Firstly i did not say or imply that your abortion was wanton. If you inferred that i actually apologise.
But secondly , if it was not, since i have several times expressed that i am not against abortions for objective reasons (even back there arguing with muravyets and URS) bringing up a case where it was is not a counterargument, because under the system i have said you would have gotten one.

I am starting to get an idea - to get an abortion the woman should appear before a commision that would medically and socio-economically assess her and the enviroment . If they agree she will get the abortion ,and for free.

I'd rather shove broken glass up my vagina then stand in front of a commission of people like you just so that I can hear all about how my choices are too 'wanton' or 'stupid' and therefore I'm going to be denied a safe abortion and will have to resort to shoving broken glass up my vagina.[/quote]

Then, do so. It is the same with state medicine - you are free not to go to emergency and stitch that gaping slice on your arm yourself, and it makes sense if the injury would prove you of a crime, but generally it is not the best choice.
If you would really rather do what you say instead of appearing in front of such commission , then you are just stubborn.[/quote]

Taken out and LOST. Permanently. Get it through your head that YOU have NO rights over anyone but yourself and leave that woman alone.

[Cradled Squads]

I'm not sure what the ongoing conversation has to do with the thread topic, but it is making me laugh.

that had no substainsive use or proof and made no sense at all. So I decided to bludgeon him with it.

You're absolutely right. Having something attached to you that affects your health automatically makes it a part of your body, even if said object functions as a separate (albeit parasitic) organism and has to trick your immune system into letting it stay there. It's a semantic argument with no actual bearing on the debate at hand, of course, so why not go with it?

Idiots annoy me. I've got a theory I'm experimenting with too...the theory is that if you verbally bludgeon a moron long enough, it will go away.

[Cradled Squads]

In my opinion (yet to remember, I am an Atheist, therefore I may not discuss the issue of destroying a human soul through abortion), abortion is not unethical I any way, as the foetus, before getting to the 6th month of pregnancy, is merely a tumorous part of a woman's body that may be decided to be removed - or not.

Talking about Foetus Rights is like talking about the rights of Bacteria, as this is what a foetus actually is: a swarm of cells that happen to be inside the same cover.

Though that, I really have a hard time imagining in what situations would be abortion good except for the foetus-inducing-health-problems one. Seriously now, as legal as abortion can be, a condom or a pill at the right time would save you of a lot of unwanted situations.

But simply put, the Poll is kind of conclusive.

Between what they claim as a 'soul' and the spirit. I think you're probably right about the so-called 'soul' in that it's not all what people think it is. What most people call 'soul' I call 'instinctive morals'.

Spirit is something altogether different and I'm NOT going into that. First, it's way too complicated and second, YOU aren't interested.

Unlike some people, I don't shove my spiritual beliefs down someone's throat the second I hear the work atheist. And who's right is unprovable as long as you're alive, so what, exactly, is the point?

[Cradled Squads]

1) Prove to me that people need fucking to survive.

So the need is hardwired into the animal brain...and this is LONG proven science that's being shown several times a year by The Learning Channel...so it isn't as if it's not common knowledge.


So I have to assume you aren't, don't and probably never have really paid attention to the wealth of information on the human body.


In which case, your ignorance is your OWN fault because, apparently, you're lazy.

[Central Slavia]

1) Prove to me that people need fucking to survive.

So the need is hardwired into the animal brain...and this is LONG proven science that's being shown several times a year by The Learning Channel...so it isn't as if it's not common knowledge.


So I have to assume you aren't, don't and probably never have really paid attention to the wealth of information on the human body.


In which case, your ignorance is your OWN fault because, apparently, you're lazy.

In what sense is that a need? we have hardwired a lot of impulses to do stuff, hijacking which pretty much is what causes drugs to be addictive but unlike food sleep and water it is not a need/
I can go for months without sex but lack of sleep gets annoying after 24 hours and three days without any water can kill some

[Bottle]

Look at it this way, I've had kids. If it's in my body and drawing substance from it, it's part of me. What you're over-looking is that while half the DNA is their father's, the other half is MINE. Leave the scientists out of it and ask the ER doctors instead.

I'd bet you get a different answer. Most of what you get from scientists publishing papers is theory.

More importantly, 100% of the raw materials that compose the baby are yours.

Think of it like this way:

Let's say you're making some chocolate chip cookies. Let's say a friend of yours gives you a bag of chocolate chips they've had lying around, and you use those to make the cookies. You buy all the other ingredients. You do all the cooking, in your kitchen, using all your own appliances.

If your friend decided to tell people that he "contributed equally" to making those cookies, what would you say?

[Bottle]

Then, do so. It is the same with state medicine - you are free not to go to emergency and stitch that gaping slice on your arm yourself, and it makes sense if the injury would prove you of a crime, but generally it is not the best choice.
If you would really rather do what you say instead of appearing in front of such commission , then you are just stubborn.

Poor, silly, stubborn Bottle. How could she wish to be treated as an actual adult human being instead of a creature who needs a panel to tell her how to live her life? That's just stubborn!

Thank heavens nobody's given me the right to vote, else I might exercise said right and help ensure that my government never implements panels full of panty-sniffing biology-failing sociopaths who get off on denying medical care to women.

It is, however, nice to see that they've temporarily abandoned the argument that women get abortions for fun. I'm sure they'll go back to that particular lie in a few more pages, but it's nice to have a break while they, instead, call me stupid.

[Arkinesia]

Look at it this way, I've had kids. If it's in my body and drawing substance from it, it's part of me. What you're over-looking is that while half the DNA is their father's, the other half is MINE. Leave the scientists out of it and ask the ER doctors instead.

I'd bet you get a different answer. Most of what you get from scientists publishing papers is theory.

1. The title thing makes it difficult to quote your posts.
2. Oh, so creationism must be right, then? Because it involves merely field observations and no theory whatsoever?

Change directions. Theories, by definition are unproven. And an emergency room is hardly 'mere observation'. I'm not even talking abortion, now...I'm talking car wrecks or whatever, that's resulted in the injury or other trauma to a pregnant woman, the unborn fetus or both. In other words, I'm referring to real life situtations instead of the makebelieve crap someone without a REAL job comes up with to pass the time and create busywork for his or her under used brain.

It doesn't mean that a fetus is a part of a woman's body.

Observations are no replacement for facts.

Caused the death of a fetus, there's enough 'data' to make the case they're part of the same system for that period of time. If damage or trauma to the fetus caused the death or damage or trauma to the female carrier, the same is true. WITHOUT there being a direct phyical link, neither would be a concern.

Did you know that it's possible for a woman to bleed to death from the early severance of the umbilical cord, under some situtations? The same cord that your theories claim has no real impact on her since the fetus isn't really a 'part' of her?

You've got to be a man, no female would be this stupid.

Oh, so when bacteria harm people, that must mean that bacteria are human body parts! Makes so much sense!